Open main menu

概要Edit

推薦にあたってEdit

推薦者のためのガイドラインEdit

まずはじめに、『秀逸な画像ガイドライン』、『画像のガイドライン』をお読みください。

ここでは推薦画像の評価を受ける・する際の必要事項を要約して紹介します。

  • 解像度 - 200万ピクセル以下の写真画像は、特別な理由が無い限り却下されます。1,600 x 1,200 ピクセル(1.92メガピクセル)は200万ピクセルには届いていない事にご注意ください。
コモンズに置かれた画像は一般的なPCモニターのみで閲覧されるとは限らず、プリントアウトや高解像度モニターで表示される可能性もあります。将来的にもどのような機器が用いられるようになるかは誰にも予想出来ないので、推薦画像が可能な限り高い解像度を保っている事は重要な事なのです。
  • スキャン画像 - 公式な方針ではありませんが、Help:スキャニングページで各種様々な画像を準備するための有用なアドバイスが提供されています。
  • フォーカス - 通常、重要な被写体は全て焦点が合っていなければいけません。
  • 前景と背景 - 前景や背景に主題ではない物が写り込むと、それは“余計なもの”になり得ます。前景にある物が主題の重要な部分を隠していないか、背景にあるものが構図を損ねていないか(例:後ろの街灯が人物の頭の上から生えているように見える、等)を確認しましょう。
  • 全体品質 - 推薦される画像には高い技術品質が要求されます。
  • デジタル補正 - 見る人を欺いてはいけません。写真画像のキズ・ホコリ等を修正する、良い編集、故意に人を騙す目的でない限り、デジタル補正は一般的に歓迎されます。例を挙げると、色合い/露出補正、シャープ/ボカシ、遠近感歪み補正、トリミング(切り取り)等がこれにあたります。背景に写り込んだ余計な物を取り除く等のさらに大がかりな修正は、{{Retouched picture}}テンプレートを画像ページへ貼付け、修正した旨を記述しましょう。記述漏れや記述ミスがある等、主題を不正確に見せる編集は決して受け入れられません。
  • 価値 - 『全ての画像の中でも特に際立ち、最も価値のある画像』が我々の大きな目標です。秀逸な画像はそれぞれの分野の中でも別格でなけらばならず、故に次の点に留意して下さい。
    • たいていの夕日は美しく見えますが、そういう画像のほとんどは他の夕日画像と大差ありません。
    • 夜景は美しいですが、普通は日中に撮影された写真の方がより詳細を見せてくれます。
    • 必ずしも『美しさに価値がある』わけではありません。

技術的側面では露出『構図』『動感表現』被写界深度等を見ます。

  • 露出とはシャッタースピードと絞りとの組み合わせの事を言い、適切なトーンカーブが見せる陰影〜ハイライトが有用なディティールを描写します。これをラティチュード(露光寛容度)と言い、このラティチュードの陰影〜ハイライトの領域内において、画像を暗め、中庸、明るめに作る事が出来ますが、デジタルカメラ及びデジタル画像はこのラティチュードの範囲がフィルムに比べて狭いです。ディティールの欠損した影部分は必ずしも「悪い」わけではなく、実際にその様な効果が望ましい場合(部分)もあります。ただしディティールの欠損したハイライト部分が大きく面積を占めるのは良くありません。
  • 構図とは画像画面内での各要素の配置の事を言います。“三分割法”は構図作成には良い方法で、美術学校でも教えられています。まず、画像に水平線と垂直線をそれぞれ2本引き、画像を水平・垂直方向とも3分割します。主題を中央に配置するとたいていは画面に面白味を欠き、水平線と垂直線が交差する4つの交点の内どれか1つに主題を置いた方が良い画面になるでしょう。地平線は画面を半分に切ってしまうので、通常は地平線を中央に配置するべきではありません。上寄り、若しくは下寄りに配置させる方が良いでしょう。主たる考え方としては空間を上手に使い、躍動感・臨場感のある画面を作るという事です。
  • 動感表現 - ここでは被写体の「動き」を表現する手法を紹介します。動きのある被写体は止まって見えるか、もしくはブレて写りますが、これらはどちらの方が良いとは必ずしも言えず、どのような表現意図を持っているかによります。「動感」は主題と共に写り込んでいる他の背景等との関係で表現されます。例えばレーシングカーの撮影。車と背景とが共に止まって見えては、見る側にスピード感は伝わってきません。 なので撮影手法によって車は画面内で止まっているように写り、かつ背景をブレさせることでスピード感が表現され、このような手法を「パンニング(流し撮り)」と呼びます。一方で、背景と共に止まって撮られた高く跳躍したバスケットボール選手は、これは決定的瞬間の「不自然」なポーズになり、これも良い写真になり得るでしょう。
  • 被写界深度(DOF)とは主題の前側から後ろ側までのフォーカスエリアの事を言います。被写界深度は全ての画像で明解な意図のもと選択され、深い、または浅い被写界深度は、画像に品質を与えもし、また損なわせもします。浅い被写界深度は、主題を他の被写体から切り離し、見せたい被写体に注目を集めることが出来ます。深い被写界深度は空間を強調させる事が出来ます。広角(短焦点)レンズは深い被写界深度、逆に望遠(長焦点)レンズは浅い被写界深度が得られる傾向があります。また絞りを絞り込むと被写界深度は深く、解放すると浅い被写界深度が得られます。

グラフィック要素では形状、ボリューム、色、テクスチャー、遠近感、バランス、比率 等を見ます。

  • 形状とは主題に対する輪郭線、及び形状を言います。
  • ボリュームとは主題の立体感に対する品質を言います。立体感は横からのライティングで表現出来、反対に正面からのライティングは被写体を平坦に見せる傾向があり、不向きとされています。自然光の中でベストな光を得るには、早朝か、もしくは夕方の日の光が良いでしょう。
  • は大変重要で、強すぎる色合いは好ましくありません。
  • テクスチャーとは主題の表面材質の描写性に於ける品質を言います。表面材質は横からのライティングにより強調され、手に触れて伝わるかのような質感を与えます。
  • 遠近感とは、画像の画面内若しくは外にある消失点で繋がる放射状の直線、これに沿った形で現れる「角度」により表現されます。
  • バランスでは画像の画面内での重心が左右均衡か、若しくは片方に寄る等適切な配置が成されているかを見ます。
  • 比率では画面の大きさに対する被写体の大きさを見ます。一般的に、小さな被写体は小さく写真に表現してしまう傾向にありますが、相応しい撮影手法により小さな被写体を実寸とは逆に大きく見せる事が可能です。例えば、小さな花を大きな山よりも大きく見る事が出来ます。この手法を指して「倒置法」と呼びます。
主題の全ての要素を画像に盛込む必要はありません。多くの写真はそれぞれの個性で評価出来ます。すなわち、画像の色やテクスチャー等々により判断出来ます。
  • 『象徴性か妥当性か』 ー 『秀逸な画像』ではしばしばこのようなテーマで意見論争が起こる傾向にあります。技術的・品質的には出来の悪い写真でも極めて撮影困難な被写体を捉えた写真は、凡庸な被写体を写した品質的に良い写真よりも評価されます。もちろん撮影困難な被写体を写し、かつ品質も良い写真は極めて価値の高い写真と言えます。
画像は時に撮影者と評価者、若しくはどちらか片方の文化的な偏りが見られます。画像の意図は画像そのものの文化的背景により評価されるべきであり、評価者の文化的背景に依存してはいけません。イメージは人に語りかけ、そして慈しみ、怒り、拒絶、幸せ、悲しみ等の感情を喚起させる力を持っています。良い写真から与えられる心地よさには限りがありません。


画像のガイドラインを事前に読めば、あなたの推薦が成就する可能性を最大限に引き伸ばしてくれるでしょう。

新規推薦Edit

推薦に値する価値があると考えられる画像を作った、または見つけたならば、その画像に適切な説明ライセンスが与えられているかを確認し、以下に従ってください。

ステップ1:画像名(接頭Image:を含む)を下のテキストボックス内の文字列の後にコピー&ペースト、正しく Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg と記入されているかを確認し、続いて『作品を推薦』ボタンをクリックします。


ステップ2:ページ編集画面上にある指示に従い必要箇所を付記、ページを保存してください。

ステップ3:ステップ2で作成したページへのリンクをFeatured picture candidates/candidate listへ手動で挿入します。ページ編集をクリックし、候補リスト最上部に以下の書式で推薦画像へのリンクを加えます。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg}}

投票Edit

投票には以下のテンプレートを使用します:

  • {{支持}}または{{Support}} (  Support  Support),
  • {{反対}}または{{Oppose}} (  Oppose  Oppose),
  • {{中立}}または{{Neutral}} (  Neutral  Neutral),
  • {{コメント}}または{{Comment}} (  Comment  Comment),
  • 情報:{{Info}} (  Info),
  • 質問:{{Question}} (  Question).

テンプレート{{FPX|理由}}を用いて、推薦画像が秀逸な画像の推薦に相応しくない旨を指摘出来ます。テンプレートの「理由」部分に、秀逸な画像には明確に値しない事の説明を書き加えます(可能ならば英語で)。

あなたが何故その画像を好むか、または好まないか、特に(  Supportや(  Opposeの投票をする際は簡単な理由を加えましょう。また署名(~~~~)も忘れずに。匿名投票は受け付けられません。

秀逸な画像からの除外Edit

時も経ればやがて『秀逸な画像』の基準も変わります。かつては“充分に価値に値する”と決定されたであろう画像も、その価値は普遍ではありません。ここでは「もはや『秀逸な画像』に値しない」と考えられる画像をリストアップします。リストされた画像へは、{{Keep}}   Keep 及び {{維持}}   Keep (=『秀逸な画像』に値する)、または{{Delist}}   Delist 及び {{除外}}   Oppose (=『秀逸な画像』に値しない)を投票します。

あなたが『秀逸な画像』の価値基準に値しないと考える画像があれば、除外候補として提出できます。除外したい画像の画像名(接頭Image:を含む)を下のテキストボックスの文字列の後にコピー&ペーストします。


あなたが作成した新規除外候補のページに以下を加えます。

  • 画像の作者、投稿者等の出所情報。
  • その画像の“過去の秀逸な画像への推薦”ページへのリンク(画像ページの「リンク節」に表示されています)。
  • あなたが除外と考える理由とあなたの署名。

次に、Commons:Featured picture candidates/removalを編集し、下記の書式で作成した除外候補のページのリンクを手動で最上段に挿入します。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:除外画像名.jpg}}

秀逸な画像の候補での方針Edit

総則Edit

  1. 投票期間を終えた後、結果は推薦日時から数えて10日後(下記タイムテーブル参照)に決定します。投票期間は推薦日時から数えて9日と23時間59分です。10日、またはそれを超えた投票はカウントされません。
  2. 匿名寄稿者による推薦を歓迎します。
  3. 匿名寄稿者による議論への参加を歓迎します。
  4. 匿名寄稿者による投票はカウントされません。
  5. 推薦者票は投票へはカウントされません。支持は明示的かつ言明される必要があります。
  6. 推薦者は自身の推薦をいつでも取り下げる事が出来ます。推薦を取り下げるには "I withdraw my nomination" (推薦を取り下げます)と書くか、テンプレート {{withdraw|~~~~}} を加えます。
  7. ウィキメディア・コモンズのプロジェクトの目的は、全てのウィキメディアプロジェクト(将来的なプロジェクト含む)に於いて自由に利用可能な画像を集積するセントラル・データベースを提供することである、ということを忘れないでください。セントラル・データベースは単純にウィキメディアの保管庫と言うわけではなく、また『秀逸な画像』等のプロジェクトに応じた判断をされるべきではありません。
  8. 推薦日から数えて5日間支持を受けられなかった画像(推薦者票含まず)は候補リストから外されます。(下記タイムテーブル参照)
  9. テンプレート{{FPX}}が貼られた画像は、テンプレート{{FPX}}の適用後は推薦者以外の支持票が無い限り、48時間後に候補リストから外されます。

秀逸と除外のルールEdit

候補画像は下記必要事項に準じて秀逸な画像に認定されます。

  1. 適切なライセンス情報が添付されている。
  2. 最低5票以上の支持票を得ている。
  3. 支持:反対比率が2:1 (賛成が3分の2の過半数)以上である。
  4. 2つの同様な画像での異なったバージョンは同時に『秀逸な画像』へは認定されず、より支持票の多かった一枚を認定します。

除外ルールでは、投票期間、及びリストから外される期間は秀逸ルールと同じ期間を取ります。除外候補提出後5日間で提出者以外の   Delist   Oppose)票が得られなかった候補は、5日間ルールが適用され、候補リストから外されます。

常連ユーザーが推薦・投票の完了方法に従って、推薦投票を閉じることがあります。終了方法に関してはCommons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finishedを参照。

何よりも礼儀を忘れずにEdit

どうか、あなたが評価するその画像が「人の作品」であることを忘れないでください。「これはヒドイ」、「こんなのキライだ」と言ったような表現は避けましょう。もしあなたが『反対』に票を投じなければならないのなら、思いやりを忘れずに。また、あなたの話す英語は、また誰か他の人の話す英語とは同じではないでしょう。慎重に言葉を選んでください。

それでは良い評価を。そして、全てのルールは壊すことが出来るという事を忘れないでください。

関連項目Edit

目次Edit

Contents

秀逸な画像の候補Edit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Weizen IMG 2713.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 17:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures<Plants/Triticum aestivum>
  •   Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Apart from the blurriness and the small dimensions I miss the Wow effect in the first place.--Ermell (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ermell --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:PIA19048 realistic color Europa mosaic.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 11:33:52
 

  • It could also be argued that an upscale is a major digital change, so should've been added with Template:Retouched image before being listed as a candidate, as per FPC guide.
  • As zooming in unnecessarily decreases the overall quality of the image, it is unlikely to meet several points of COM:IG, such as noise, color and editing. This featured version suffers from severe chromatic aberrations and a jagged planet edge which the original does not. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- BevinKacon (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist because upscaling is pointless as it does nothing except adds file size without improvement in the actual detail preserved. That said, before this goes any further, may I suggest a delist-and-replace instead, replacing this one with the original non-upscaled image? The original still meets minimum size requirements and is by far the sharpest and best quality image of Europa on the internet. Cmao20 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Rådhuset metro station in August 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 09:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Greenland 467 (35130903436).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 08:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:L'embarquement quai des Orfèvres sur l'île de la Cité, Paris 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 07:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created by Jean-Pierre Dalbéra (Flickr) - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks OK, but I'm not seeing the big wow factor here. It looks a bit ordinary, like a photo any tourist could take on any given day.--Peulle (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, it's a good photo and well-composed but I'm afraid it just doesn't wow me very much. I think it was worth a try here though. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mo wow and for me too bright --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:20131013-22. Kokneses pils, rudens.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:54:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Koknese Castle, a partially-submerged castle complex in Koknese, Latvia, dating from the thirteenth century. created by KarlitoWiki - uploaded by KarlitoWiki - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice find. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose: gorgeous colours and nice composition, but too soft --СССР (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per CCCP - also, I would have liked to see more of the reflection in the water for better balance.--Peulle (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition, great light and colours. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice colors, but there's no shortage of autumn FPs and we don't have to promote one that falls slightly short on technical standards. -- King of ♠ 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is autumn mood, but otherwise not much that would make me say wow. Sorry. --A.Savin 02:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Kaupanger stavkyrkje 2018 take 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:SenatorWetmoreInAutomobile retouched.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:11:38
 

File:Swayambhunath Stupa -Kathmandu Nepal-0336.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 21:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@СССР, Famberhorst:   Done Thank you -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition looks disorganized to me, with the corners of the temple on the right being cut off and the stone structures on the bottom not really coming together to direct the viewer's eyes to the golden temple. -- King of ♠ 01:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake Benmore with surrounding hills, New Zealand 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 21:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I quite like the composition and how the clouds fit into it. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Only thing keeping me from strong support is the almost-blown clouds at right, although there may have been nothing you could do about that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support If the sun lights up a white cloud, it should be "Oh my eyes are hurting" bright to look at, and there is no detail anyway. Sadly we don't have HDR JPG yet, but please don't turn them paper-white just to please FPC reviewers. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Really refreshing. -- King of ♠ 01:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bonnet Macaque DSC 1125.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 18:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created & uploaded by Shankar Raman - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 10 years old picture but still stands out for me. Big wow. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik. Cmao20 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Shot at the right time -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. (Minor point: I think it's evident the monkey is in fact yawning, so I wouldn't use scare quotes around that word in the file description.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really poor quality. Nothing in focus. Look at the teeth. Charles (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Not perfectly crisp, yet not particularly bad either. I wouldn't go as far to say "really poor quality". And it's surely an unusual photo. --A.Savin 02:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Winter auf der Abtsrodaer Kuppe.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 12:15:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Volcán de Ollagüe, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 80-88 PAN.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 11:10:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Volcanic landscape featuring from left to right Tomasamil (5,890 m or 19,320 ft), Cañapa (5,882 m or 19,298 ft), Ollagüe (5,868 m or 19,252 ft) and Aucanquilcha (6,176 m or 20,262 ft), Andes, southern Bolvia/northern Chile. c/u/n by me, Poco2 11:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 11:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support That's one heck of a panorama. No stitching faults visible, at least not to me, and sharpness is great everywhere. Cmao20 (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 26-27 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 10:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It's the worst on the top left, actually, I added a note. --СССР (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
СССР: Still surprised to categorize that as "strong CA", but anyhow, it's gone. The right side is also "fixed" since I've cropped it Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It's neither gone nor looking any different, actually. --СССР (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The angle is not as striking as the former POTY finalist, but the resolution is better (I suspect the other image is cropped from a wide-angle shot to minimise distortion at the edges). Overall the composition is sufficiently different for a new FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think this could work with some of the clouds cropped off the top (and corresponding crops to the bottom and sides to better center the church), As it is I feel like putting my hand to my forehead to shield my eyes as I view this. See note. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    Daniel Case: I've applied a cropped overall but rather than doing it the same way at each side, I did it considering the content Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:North-west facade of the Castle of Chambord 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality, and I like that it shows the castle from a different angle to usual, but I think too much of the image is in shadow. I'm also not overly sold on the people and I think it would have been better if you could have waited for them to leave. Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    I was lucky that so few tourists were in the picture. This is the Chambord castle, where is always the tourists. Tournasol7 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I don't mind the tourists; I've been one and they're not taking away from the image. However, I think you could crop a little tighter to get rid of some of the distracting elements of the foreground (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Daniel Case.--Vulphere 03:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much of the foreground is in shadow. -- King of ♠ 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Grand'Rue in Colmar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose A lot to recommend it, but I think it would look better in stronger light. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Were it not for the cars, this could be a painting. Cmao20 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree the cars are a big negative and likely need to get up early to avoid them but that's what the postcard photographers do. Wrt looking like a painting, yes this doesn't look like a photo. It has been overprocessed, with a very heavy hand on the Lightroom sliders. Compare File:Colmar (31617330537).jpg. -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Solitär in der Hamburger HafenCity.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 06:04:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info High-rise appartment building on the corner of Osakaallee and Tokiostraße, HafenCity quarter Hamburg, as seen from Überseeboulevard. The building is an example of the solitary architecture that this part of Hamburg has been criticised for. c/u/n by Frank Schulenburg
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Reminds me of this FP of mine. Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bold, striking image that works well because of the contrast of red against blue. Cmao20 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20 -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A building with slight vertical distortion is not supposed to work - but somehow it does. -- King of ♠ 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-07-20-Dingle Lighthouse-0673.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 23:30:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @W.carter: Yes, that is indeed a typo. Why I thought that was German for lighthouse, I have no clue. Thank you for the notice--Boothsift 00:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The German term would be "Leuchtturm" (Lighttower) :-) I fixed the typo to lighthouse --Superbass (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Superbass. In the future, please wait until the nom is finished before renaming a file since it messes with the codes for the nom. I'll keep an eye on this and fix the links if this nom is successful. --Cart (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I had no idea this could be a problem. Thanks for the hint and for a correction if necessary. --Superbass (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but do fix the typo. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Extremely picturesque and nicely done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment A very nice view that deserves FP IMHO, but, Superbass, can you please fix the perspective (see on the right the buildings leaning out)? Poco2 10:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a very fine perspective problem at the tiny houses in the background. I have tickled a correction out of Lightroom using guides in zoomed view: Click. Unfortunately this costs pixels at the edges of the photo. I personally prefer the image composition in the candidate photo and find the minimal slant in some of the tiny houses acceptable, what do you think? --Superbass (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Proper perspective correction in photos taken from top to down is extremely difficult to get right and often distorts the photo too much, so usually it is not done. --Cart (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with Cart. When "looking down" the verticals slope outwards rather than inwards. When we "fix the perspective" are are pretending the camera was pointing straight ahead and with a very wide angle lens -- sometimes the distortions of that virtual-lens are then too negative in their own ways. I can only see the sloping when pixel peeping. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Common tern at Brooklyn Bridge Park (21040).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 20:07:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by and uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 20:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 20:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks, Boothsift. Taken while hiding behind a bollard while she did some fishing. (btw I say "she" but AFAIK they are sexually monomorphic, so I'm not sure). — Rhododendrites talk |  22:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support "For everything, tern, tern, tern, there is a season ..." Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nice photo, but aren't FPs of birds this size usually sharper? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Per Ikan, a nice one, but not outstanding in comparison to others. I also prefer seing wild life pictures in a wild life environment Poco2 10:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. --Hockei (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems reasonably sharp to me. A bit noisy in the darker areas, but I prefer noise to unsharpness from too much NR. Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Common bird. Concrete perch not good. No definition to feathers at all. Nowhere near FP quality in composition or technical standard. I'm amazed at the positive votes. Charles (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Weird halo around the bird's head. Concrete is also not great. -- King of ♠ 01:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Microcentrum retinerve Mex2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 13:14:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice wings (or should we say leaves?), but not the head out of focus. The framing is also not optimal in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Basile, not bad though and an interesting subject. Cmao20 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes wings are good, but head is not in focus and the framing is odd. Charles (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per above. -- King of ♠ 01:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Vincent van Gogh - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project (454045).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 03:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ETH Zürich im Abendlicht.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 03:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by User:ETH-Bibliothek - uploaded by User:ETH-Bibliothek - nominated by Pine -- Pine (✉) 03:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pine (✉) 03:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Not bad quality for a night shot, but I'm a bit disturbed by that unsightly chimney. Cmao20 (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Cmao; without metadata I can't be sure if this was the best possible shot, i.e. it looks like it might have been a long exposure but I can't tell for sure. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cmao--Boothsift 23:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The dark trees of the foreground make the composition cluttered. The quality is not exceptional, with these buildings at the distance lacking sharpness. Blown highlights through the windows of the main building are not really successful, it would have been more interesting to make the interior visible, with HDR for example -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I generally agree with Basile's points. I also am not so impressed with the quality and amount of noise, compared to some other blue hour photos we've featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Louisa May Alcott, c. 1870 - Warren's Portraits, Boston.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 19:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Die Schöllenen Schlucht mit Teufelsbrücke im schweizerischen Kanton Uri.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 08:44:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Indeed, the stitching errors are still visible, as CCCP points out. Have added notes to show the worst-affected areas. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support now that errors are fixed. It's a shame that we've still got that sudden transition between the sharp and the unsharp area, but that's something you only see if you pixel peep. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Composition does not work for me. I'd need more sky, maybe more to the right or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: the errors are still present; would gladly support otherwise. --СССР (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile and СССР.--Ermell (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree the composition isn't working. Just a bit jumbled. And there are still large stitching errors and it looks like some of your frames are blurry, which isn't fixable unless you have more frames to choose. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I see the image has been changed considerably, including the composition. Wolfgang Moroder, you should really ping those who have voted already after making such big changes -- this is no longer the same photo. Unfortunately the problems with stitching remain and aren't minor. The biggest remaining problem is angles and verticles. Look at the nearest bridge right-hand-side. Compare File:Teufelsbrücke (Devil's Bridge) high in the Swiss Alps.JPG. The upper line of bricks should fall at an angle (the edge is not vertical) but is a straight line, whereas in this photo is is seriously bowed and changes direction. The lower two sections of bricks should have a vertical edge, but here slope considerably. Compare also the right hand side of the photo with the railings and little tunnel -- the vertical walls and rails aren't vertical. There are quite a lot of blurry areas which mostly are hard to spot if I downsize 50% to 24MP, but aren't so much a reason to oppose than to wonder why upload at full res if the quality isn't there. In my experience a hand-held panorama is possible to FP level, but a big gamble and I take many extra frames to try to ensure success. Here I don't think the gamble succeeded, and a wide-angle lens would have created a more reliably accurate picture. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment The perfect photo does not exist. Who cares for the vertical lines, angles and rails if you almost don't notice them. This is not an architectural photo where perfect vertical lines are requested. But, if you don't like the water, the bridges and the rocks, the misty sky and the overall atmosphere of this photo as I and some others do, just feel free to oppose, no problem. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done @Colin:, @Peulle:, @Boothsift:, @Daniel Case: Thanks for the comments and support. I uploaded a new version without (I hope) stitching errors and different crop. Please feel free to revise your support. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There are still significant errors in this third version, at the top right corner, three long black oblique lines. I did not inspect the whole image deeply because it's quite a thankless job to look for such technical flaws with so large images, but I think at least these obvious mistakes should be fixed -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Power lines -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment Not an error, those are overhead power lines.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - You fixed the compositional problem very effectively, in a different way than I thought of. Kudos! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Ansberg Blickrichtung Süden 120324.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 08:16:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info View from the Ansberg in Franconian Switzerland southward. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd be interesting to see the frame divided exactly into 3 parts of the same hight (trees, mountains, sky) but this is still working for me. Simple, pretty, nice colours. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Idyllic. Cmao20 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice but remove the big dust spot and the minor spots in the sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nevertheless--Boothsift 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Pretty, but the composition doesn't work for me. The hills would, but the trees kind of just sit there and interfere, so it seems like two separate ideas in two layers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Ikan. We often use foreground to lead into the distance, but here they seem to form a barrier. I tried a crop like Podzemnik considered (e.g. 16:9 excluding bottom) which makes the trees a layer of fire at the bottom, but still unconvinced. We have so many layered mountain views at FP, this one isn't quite working. -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the reverse leading to infinity. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. The idea is good, but I think a 4:3 aspect ratio is not the most effective way to convey it. You can either go wide (at least 8:5) to emphasize the horizontal lines, or make it a vertical composition to emphasize the different layers (on this particular image that might not work so well as there are not enough layers to do that, but I'm saying in general for these types of compositions). -- King of ♠ 01:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Hakatere River valley, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2019 at 20:44:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:A 95 year old woman with her pet rooster, Havana, Cuba.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2019 at 17:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Tomer T, the "rename the file after the nomination" is because a rename during a nom will mess with the codes if the nom is successful. I've put this on my watchlist so I'll fix things after the closing. --Cart (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Cart, maybe if I change the name of the nomination page it will work better? Tomer T (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Tomer T, well technically yes. If you move the file name, you have to move the nom-page too to the same new name and see to it that all the names are fixed in the top part of the nom and put a speedy-delete on the old redundant nom page. If you are not sure what you are doing, mistakes can make things worse. If you rename a file after the nom is closed, the redirects will sort things out nicely. Just leave it be for now and I'll fix it later. --Cart (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support That's quite a fun picture. Cmao20 (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Water reflection of Kinkaku-ji Temple a sunny day, Kyoto, Japan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2019 at 01:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


  • Please Chianti, add your notes on the nomination page, not on the original file page, where they're displayed everywhere outside this section, Wikipedia included. I've moved it for you. Thanks for your suggestion. However the result is not very well balanced in my view, particularly the building, which I prefer here in the middle. I may crop the water a little bit more, at the bottom and at the right, keeping the 16:9 ratio, but I don't think that will change that much -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment thank you very much for smoothing out my mistake, sorry for that. I'm only expressing my opinion from my first impressions – if you prefer it in the middle which is a valid reason from a composition standpoint, leave it like it is.--Chianti (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • After reflection, I made this small change, not exactly your crop, but slightly less water and less tree, then I'm happy with the result. Thanks for your comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent, I can't find a better image of this (fairly iconic) temple on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Fischer.H (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very difficult to get that without people.--Ermell (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed. When I was there, the place was totally overcrowed. That was during koyo though, a main season for both domestic as well as international tourists --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 9:03am, just 3 min after opening :-) But that was my second visit, since the weather was terrible the first time. Long way to go, but more fruitful that sunny day -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 06:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nicely done--Boothsift 22:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - In theory, I'd want more and not less reflection of the trees. In practice, that's a very small detail and a debatable one (excellent painters cut stuff off all the time) and the composition as is is quite good, and as usual, this is a very crisp image from you. Overall, beautiful and excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ahmadtalk 12:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Opinel N°10 Carbon w bread on wood.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 22:24:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
  •   Info French Opinel pocket/folding knife with bread; showing the typical stains of a carbon steel blade – created by Chianti - uploaded by Chianti - nominated by Chianti -- Chianti (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Chianti (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting subject, but the strong reflection on the blade is distracting, and the composition with the bread is not very good. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you for your opinion. A technically perfect photo of these objects without blade reflection exists with File:Opinel-bread-01.jpg, but it lacks wow. The light-shadow distribution here is deliberately chosen to highlight the blade, the correct word is therefore not "distracting" but attracting the eye of the viewer. It is intended to be as "distracting" as the sheets in this image. In fact, this photo thoroughfully composed with larger dark parts in the top left and lighter parts in bottom right, with the smaller lighter spot on the bread crust bottom left and the darker spot top right for balance. The locking mechanism of the knive was placed in the middle of the diagonal of the latter two – a diagonal that puts the highlighted blade on the overall darker side of said diagonale and the darker part of the knive (the handle) in the overall lighter "half" of the picture. Even the shape of the bread was intentional to "reverse repeat" the blade point and curve. I hope this helped you to understand the idea of the image and why I chose it from many others of a series; also this was a short introduction to basic and classic principles of composition of Natures Mortes. There's some more like a dark "L" contrasting with a lighter "L" (as I would call it), feel free to ask if you want to know more. To make it more easy for you I made an annotated image here referring to my comments, which also may help you in the future when it comes to judging photos regarding composition. Regards, Chianti (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You would have much better chance with exposure like File:Opinel-bread-01.jpg. I suggest you try again with a clean table, and different compositions with the bread. Personally I would like to see the whole bread. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose According to Opinel's website this is an outdoor knife, suitable "to work difficult materials, trim branches". It would seem more appropriate, for cutting bread indoors, to use their bread knife which has serrations. While I appreciate your explanation of the care taken over the composition of the photo, ultimately the opinion of whether the photo works is in the eye of the beholder, and if Yann finds the reflection distracting, then you can't just argue that away. For non-obvious photographs, it is better to explain your work up-front than have to potentially defend it after being opposed/misunderstood. Still, one can't please everyone. I think the long thin aspect-ratio of the framing is peculiar and not ideal, both in terms of composition but also utility. It seems more the photo has been cropped around a knife-shaped rectangle rather than the objects arranged within a more conventional frame. The perpendicular arrangement of the blade to the viewer is not dynamic. The knife is resting propped against the bread as though someone where taking a photograph of it, rather than its normal resting position of flat-side-up. The overall effect is a bit contrived.
The photo of the person cutting bread on Opinel's breadknife webpage is imo a better image of what is after all a tool that is designed to be used. If one is determined to make a still-life involving bread and a knife, then some more elements would help, such as additional slices, and perhaps the food that is to be placed on top. We do tend to prefer some educational utility for the image, rather than still-life art for its own sake (though it has a place). So you'd get more support if it was more clearly educational. For example, food photography of delicious bread and toppings making me hungry for it, or hand-tool photography showing the proper knife being actively used to cut bread. -- Colin (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have several of these myself, I carry at least one with me all the time, and I use them indoor and outdoor. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I like the composition, it works well for me, and I appreciate the skill involved. For a more clear FP, however, I'd prefer to see a shot that's a little bit more dynamic - for example, as Colin suggests, a photo showing the knife being used to cut bread. This is a good still-life and overall I think deserves a feature, but it's not the kind of images that grabs you straight away. Cmao20 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I was going to support, as this is way better than the other photo in terms of color and contrast, i.e. it makes you want to have a slice of the bread, until I read Colin's oppose, and I just can't unthink it, so to speak. The more you look at it after reading, the more you'd want to see a serrated knife in the image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Colin--Boothsift 22:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Moscow Metro Dobryninskaya asv2018-09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 21:12:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Acker-Winde IMG 2708.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 17:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Solanales
  •   Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 18:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just a QI. This is an extremely common flower, of which we have hundreds of comparable images on Commons. At only 3MP this is a long way short of the detail and composition and lighting we expect at FP in 2019. Seven Pandas, Vulphere, FP is about the finest on Commons, just just a pretty flower. I don't think you are doing the necessary homework before supporting FP. Fischer.H, I have fixed your FP link, would you please take more care to get your nomination right. -- Colin (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but I'd like to see something more special for a flower FP - like interesting lighting, great composition, crisp sharpness or high resolution. The composition is good but unfortunately I'm not getting more of the mentioned things. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others; I don't think that background does it any favors. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others; sharpness is good, but the resolution and detail don't quite match up to many recent flower FPs. Cmao20 (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others on this image, sorry--Boothsift 22:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Daslook (Allium ursinum) d.j.b 07.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 15:13:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants/Asparagales#Family : Amaryllidaceae

File:Pyrrhura perlata - Karlsruhe Zoo 03.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 07:04:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, these birds... are real pigs! :-) Basile Morin (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Sumba sheeps 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 06:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sure they're not sheeps off the old block?  Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Would make a great "Hello from the Farøe Islands!" postcard. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 06:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Never been to the Farøe Islands, would like to some day--Boothsift 22:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice view of a place I indeed don't know, but the technical level is not FP, there is a very clear drop of quality on the right side. Furthermore, it needs a perspective correction (look at the houses on the right leaning out) Poco2 10:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not architecture photography. Normal top-down view, and the horizon is correct -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Chalet du Mont-Royal panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 05:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Canada
  •   Info: all by -- СССР (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 18:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, no wow. -- Colin (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good picture that illustrates its subject well, but I agree with Colin, it's not a massively imposing or impressive building, and although the sky is blue, it's quite dull and featureless. Cmao20 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not very wowing--Boothsift 22:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Senfweißling auf Pusteblume.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 06:15:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info created - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 19:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The out-of-focus seedhead doesn't work for me, nor does the yellow background. Butterfly is very sharp. I'd rotate a couple of degrees too. Charles (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles's complaints about the background. Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I have to agree on the background – while the butterfly itself is great, the distracting intensity of the screaming yellow spoils it. It feels like sipping a wonderful wine out of a candy-coloured plastic mug :) Try to lower the yellow saturation a bit, that hardly affects the rest of the image. --Kreuzschnabel 06:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --per Charlesjsharp.Fischer.H (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Fischer.H, you are expected to give a reason for an oppose. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looking at the photographer's uploads, the background is natural and makes a pleasant change. Also nice to see full size high resolution images of insects, which I don't recall seeing much of since Jee stopped taking photographs for FP. We've got used to <10MP recently, which is a bit of a backward step. I see insect photos up to 40MP in this photographers's upload list, which is a bit more like it for 2019. -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A bit more like it? Many photographers cannot afford 40MP capability. Jee's and my cameras only have 24MP. Charles (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin - not perfect, but great considering the size. Cmao20 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I also agree per Colin. A wonderfully sharp image, and, as for the yellow background, well, why not? I know how much effort and how many dozens of shots it takes to achieve such a high level of detail across the frame if the subject is alive, which I assume is the case here. My regular 42 MBit images of live insects usually whittle down to 10 MBit or less, thus my full respect for such a convincing image displaying an incredible width of 5531 pixels! By the way, this is the first image I have encountered lacking EXIF data. Any reason why? -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Franz van Duns the missing EXIF might be due to whatever software was last used to save the image. Some of the more basic programs just discard it. Alternatively, I think Photoshops "Save for the web" also discards it due to an 1990's mindset about saving a few bytes. You could ask the photographer what they used. Btw, Megapixels (MP) isn't the same as MBit (which is just filesize and depends on compression used). Filling the frame with an insect requires good kit and good technique and an awful lot of patience for failure. -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Colin Thank you for your answer and your quick reply. It seems that the vast majority of contributors uses software that does pass on the EXIF data, more or less unchanged. Opps, I admit I was slightly distracted when I typed "MBit", when "MPixel" was what I actually meant. By the way, each one of my RAW files is approximately 85 MBytes (680 MBit) in size before being processed to the final JPG image. And yes, I also agree that much, much patience is the requisite element contributing to that singular image that stands out against dozens, or even hundreds, of technically perfect, but simply less outstanding images.
  •   Support --Boothsift 05:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 10:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Interior of the Tokyo International Forum Glass Building, Japan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 02:13:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 19:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Really, really great idea, pity it’s literally full of denoising/sharpening artifacts at 100 percent view, even in the center of the image. I cannot find a single natural-looking edge. Towards the corners it looks rather like a painting than a photograph. I think a stitched panorama would have done much better here instead of an ultra wide angle shot. --Kreuzschnabel 06:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pixel peeping? There's almost no sharpening here. It was shot @100 ISO with an excellent lens, then sharp from the beginning. No need to increase anything. A stitched panorama would have certainly given the same result, but with the risk of potential stitching errors. This ultra wide rectilinear lens is very adapted in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   strong oppose The problem here is that the light is awful (and the noise Kreuzschnabel sees when pixel peeping is caused by lifting the shadows to try to lighten the dull interior). We're supposed to be selecting the finest on Commons, so compare with two other photographs on Commons of this building: File:Tokyo International Forum Glass Building 1.jpg and File:Tokyo International Forum Glass Building 3.jpg. Both are high resolution though have pixel-peeping issues. But wow, the lighting in those photographs is amazing. Rather than dull shade colours as though the building had solid walls and roof and some tiny windows, we have bright sunlight colours, with a multitude of patches of light through the glass atrium. This nomination is a long way short, photographically, from those images. -- Colin (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
discussion
  • Unfortunately the quality of those 2 images is quite bad. I also suspect a strong processing. Here this is an authentic blue sky. And the post-treatment is very mild -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think "authentic blue sky" or "mild post-treatment" are feature-worthy attributes. Nearly the entire interior is in dull shade. For a glass atrium this is particularly unfortunate. The quality of the other two photos is just fine, except for pixel-peepers. They would both print A4 to high quality and and make spectacular covers for an architecture journal. This photo, regardless of the quality of its pixels, would be rejected. -- Colin (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry but if you call this a picture with bad lighting you should take basic classes in composition and buy your first architectural magazine. You should take a look at the image as a whole and its distribution of lights and shadows and the constrast and balance of the lighter and darker parts. The photos you linked to don't come even close to this one, they are like candy coloured exstasy trips with few overall contrast and almost flat lighting. Some like this style, and it's merely a matter of taste but not of quality. You obiously don't like the pic and that's okay, but you should say the truth. To call it bad instead is a terrible misjudgment.--Chianti (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
dispensable contents
  • Chianti, word of advice about your recent votes/comments. As a photographer, you'll earn respect for your opinions on lighting and composition by taking, uploading and nominating great photos that are fantastic examples of such. And some Commoners, such as Yann, do so by repeatedly successfully nominating images by others. Lecturing experienced photographers as though they'd only just picked up a camera and are working out where the "on" switch is, or experienced Commoners as though they hadn't successfully nominated hundreds and reviewed thousands of FPs already, is going to piss off everyone real fast. Btw, lighting and composition are separate topics, with their own classes and books (of which I have many). If you look, you will see that the alternative image I think is better, has pretty much the same composition (it is clearly an obvious decent spot from which to take a photo). The difference is purely the quality of light. There is a reason why "dull" in English means both poor light and unexciting. This building can look great when lit well, and this is bad lighting. -- Colin (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  N Colin has "a very bad habit of attacking people in a decent speech", Yann said recently, and this opinion is shared by many of us. Only 2 weeks ago another user felt attacked by the same. And immediately after there have been more disrupting comments on the FP talk page, on the same register. Now saying Chianti "is going to piss off everyone real fast" is not only hostile but above all extremely impolite. Enough! There's a policy, here: Civility - which should be respected, especially by experimented users. These kind of rude reviews are really too unpleasant. I don't really care about the strong oppose Colin gives for weak reasons, so often I receive sterile reviews by him like here and there, better to ignore. But attacking that way another user is pure disruption. Stop! -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Basile Morin could you take your grudge elsewhere. I find it a concerning that you're digging up links from fr-wp, which is a bit stalkerish. To be honest, I don't think Yann would want that episode resurfaced, because it didn't end well for him, and I've put it behind me and above I'm actually defending Yann from comments on another FPC by Chianti which are just as rude as the ones here. I think we can all see who is uncivil here (and btw, Wikipedia policies do not apply on Commons). If you have a specific complained about a specific thing I have said today, then comment on that. But this sort of mudslinging and digging out reviews from a year ago to try to rubbish my review, is a personal attack. I opposed your dull photo. Grow some balls and deal with it. -- 23:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
How very Fake News Donald "I'm the least sexist/racist person in the whole world" Trump-like to have you cite NPA after making a clear personal attack on me, and a creepy one where you clearly have researched the rest of Wikimedia to find dirt on me, and found one from four months ago on French Wikipedia. Basile, what you are doing is just one personal attack after another. I get you are upset I opposed your photo. Please stick to telling us how wonderful it is. You will note that in my disagreement with Chianti, I am focusing on his comments here (and another related comment to Yann on an FPC on this page) which are quite unacceptable, and have not made any personal attack on him nor dug into his history to find something else bad about him. Only you have done this. Don't do that. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •    One more provocation. We're not talking about Donald Trump and politics. Now check the facts and don't twist the reality. Only a few months ago, on Commons (yes, here) Yann said ""Colin, I advise you to stay away, and stop insults to me." certainly because he felt attacked. That occurred during a long and painful DR nominated by Colin, and the file was kept. Not a success for Colin. But insults are usually very counterproductive. Also pinging someone to tell him "piss off" is extremely inflammatory. Nonsense. Boring -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The events of that DR did not turn out the way you claim. Look at the image history now. The green tinted photo is history. And it was Yann, not me, who got admonished over their behaviour at that DR. He got very upset about his image going to DR, just as you are upset about an oppose vote. That wasn't typical behaviour for Yann, and we have both moved on since then. You really have no right to dig about in people's past, and unpick other people's old forgotten disputes, unrelated to a FP nomination, simply so you can find a handy insult to fling at me. By repeatedly raising off-topic (and off-Commons) issues for the purpose of provoking me, you are clearly now just trolling. Unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Colin. I'm really sorry, Basile, it seems like I've been less than supportive of a lot of your photos recently, and I don't much like doing so as they are always of very high quality. The vast majority of your nominations here are FP to me, and I don't agree about the sharpening/denoising artefacts either. But I do think that a glass atrium is supposed to be bright and airy, and a dull light really doesn't suit it. Honestly, I don't think the quality of the two pictures Colin suggests are at all bad given their high resolution, and I would probably support either for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For me this soft light shows well the interior design and highlights the colossal structure of the roof. I also like the beautiful sky through the glass and the window blinds being lit by the sun -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ... and you are right. Great composition and distribution of the lighter and darker parts, also very natural colours with a nice contrast between the yellowish blinds and the blue sky and blueish interior.--Chianti (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Impatiens pallida.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 02:28:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

These flowers hang from the stalks, cutting it is unavoidable. --СССР (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  Support, then -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment should be brighter IMO.--Ermell (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Not that I'm totally against brightening it, but why do you think so? It was taken with a flash from what was very close to the lens' minimum focusing distance of 0.28m, which, I think, provided for more than adequate illumination. The background is dark because the plant grows on the floor of the forest with a very thick canopy. СССР (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I understand the circumstances, but I still find the shadows distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how do you not find the multiple shadows that are actually on the subject distracting here? --СССР (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Why is the photo only 6MP? -- Colin (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
It's cropped; the flower is only a couple of cm is size, and I couldn't get any closer to focus. --СССР (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but as Ermell I would prefer it slightly brighter --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The shadows are a bit annoying, but overall still good. Cmao20 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Due to the shadows--Boothsift 05:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above Poco2 10:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Chur in Graubünden (Zwitserland) 41.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2019 at 15:16:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture #Switzerland.
  •   Info The city Chur is the oldest settlement in Switzerland. This old street with the beautifully painted house is located in the Altstadt.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The lighting's not really that interesting, I'm afraid. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it the way it is. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support: the sky is unispiring, but the rest of the scene more than compensates for it --СССР (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Intimate image of a fight. The brightly colored facade tries to resist the gray sky, which seems to invade everything.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support An intimate portrait of an old house. Given the narrow streets and comparatively tall buildings, this scene is best when evenly lit. The sky could of course be more interesting, but it's par for the course. Twilight on a clear day would really be the best time for this shot, probably. -- King of ♠ 19:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I’m on the "too dull" side. Can’t be too hard to re-take this in better lighting (maybe at a higher resolution and containing less noise), so I don’t see why this should be featured. Sorry if my wording is too harsh. --Kreuzschnabel 21:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --per Martin Falbisoner. Fischer.H (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it very much, and the sky doesn't bother me. Reminds me of this image by Poco. Cmao20 (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Martin --Boothsift 05:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Uninspiring sky, attractive facade. Compelling perspective effect with all the lines converging towards this red building, different from the others. Nice historical paintings at full resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Dull light. This is a clearly featurable motif, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do agree with Ikan Poco2 10:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


秀逸除外候補Edit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Weizen IMG 2713.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 17:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures<Plants/Triticum aestivum>
  •   Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Apart from the blurriness and the small dimensions I miss the Wow effect in the first place.--Ermell (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ermell --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:PIA19048 realistic color Europa mosaic.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 11:33:52
 

  • It could also be argued that an upscale is a major digital change, so should've been added with Template:Retouched image before being listed as a candidate, as per FPC guide.
  • As zooming in unnecessarily decreases the overall quality of the image, it is unlikely to meet several points of COM:IG, such as noise, color and editing. This featured version suffers from severe chromatic aberrations and a jagged planet edge which the original does not. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- BevinKacon (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist because upscaling is pointless as it does nothing except adds file size without improvement in the actual detail preserved. That said, before this goes any further, may I suggest a delist-and-replace instead, replacing this one with the original non-upscaled image? The original still meets minimum size requirements and is by far the sharpest and best quality image of Europa on the internet. Cmao20 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Rådhuset metro station in August 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 09:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Greenland 467 (35130903436).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 08:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:L'embarquement quai des Orfèvres sur l'île de la Cité, Paris 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 07:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created by Jean-Pierre Dalbéra (Flickr) - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks OK, but I'm not seeing the big wow factor here. It looks a bit ordinary, like a photo any tourist could take on any given day.--Peulle (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, it's a good photo and well-composed but I'm afraid it just doesn't wow me very much. I think it was worth a try here though. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mo wow and for me too bright --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:20131013-22. Kokneses pils, rudens.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:54:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Koknese Castle, a partially-submerged castle complex in Koknese, Latvia, dating from the thirteenth century. created by KarlitoWiki - uploaded by KarlitoWiki - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice find. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose: gorgeous colours and nice composition, but too soft --СССР (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per CCCP - also, I would have liked to see more of the reflection in the water for better balance.--Peulle (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition, great light and colours. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice colors, but there's no shortage of autumn FPs and we don't have to promote one that falls slightly short on technical standards. -- King of ♠ 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is autumn mood, but otherwise not much that would make me say wow. Sorry. --A.Savin 02:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Kaupanger stavkyrkje 2018 take 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:SenatorWetmoreInAutomobile retouched.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:11:38
 

File:Swayambhunath Stupa -Kathmandu Nepal-0336.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 21:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@СССР, Famberhorst:   Done Thank you -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition looks disorganized to me, with the corners of the temple on the right being cut off and the stone structures on the bottom not really coming together to direct the viewer's eyes to the golden temple. -- King of ♠ 01:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake Benmore with surrounding hills, New Zealand 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 21:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I quite like the composition and how the clouds fit into it. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Only thing keeping me from strong support is the almost-blown clouds at right, although there may have been nothing you could do about that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support If the sun lights up a white cloud, it should be "Oh my eyes are hurting" bright to look at, and there is no detail anyway. Sadly we don't have HDR JPG yet, but please don't turn them paper-white just to please FPC reviewers. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Really refreshing. -- King of ♠ 01:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bonnet Macaque DSC 1125.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 18:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created & uploaded by Shankar Raman - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 10 years old picture but still stands out for me. Big wow. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik. Cmao20 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Shot at the right time -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. (Minor point: I think it's evident the monkey is in fact yawning, so I wouldn't use scare quotes around that word in the file description.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really poor quality. Nothing in focus. Look at the teeth. Charles (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Not perfectly crisp, yet not particularly bad either. I wouldn't go as far to say "really poor quality". And it's surely an unusual photo. --A.Savin 02:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Winter auf der Abtsrodaer Kuppe.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 12:15:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Volcán de Ollagüe, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 80-88 PAN.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 11:10:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Volcanic landscape featuring from left to right Tomasamil (5,890 m or 19,320 ft), Cañapa (5,882 m or 19,298 ft), Ollagüe (5,868 m or 19,252 ft) and Aucanquilcha (6,176 m or 20,262 ft), Andes, southern Bolvia/northern Chile. c/u/n by me, Poco2 11:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 11:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support That's one heck of a panorama. No stitching faults visible, at least not to me, and sharpness is great everywhere. Cmao20 (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 26-27 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 10:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It's the worst on the top left, actually, I added a note. --СССР (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
СССР: Still surprised to categorize that as "strong CA", but anyhow, it's gone. The right side is also "fixed" since I've cropped it Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It's neither gone nor looking any different, actually. --СССР (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The angle is not as striking as the former POTY finalist, but the resolution is better (I suspect the other image is cropped from a wide-angle shot to minimise distortion at the edges). Overall the composition is sufficiently different for a new FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think this could work with some of the clouds cropped off the top (and corresponding crops to the bottom and sides to better center the church), As it is I feel like putting my hand to my forehead to shield my eyes as I view this. See note. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    Daniel Case: I've applied a cropped overall but rather than doing it the same way at each side, I did it considering the content Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:North-west facade of the Castle of Chambord 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality, and I like that it shows the castle from a different angle to usual, but I think too much of the image is in shadow. I'm also not overly sold on the people and I think it would have been better if you could have waited for them to leave. Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    I was lucky that so few tourists were in the picture. This is the Chambord castle, where is always the tourists. Tournasol7 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I don't mind the tourists; I've been one and they're not taking away from the image. However, I think you could crop a little tighter to get rid of some of the distracting elements of the foreground (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Daniel Case.--Vulphere 03:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much of the foreground is in shadow. -- King of ♠ 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Grand'Rue in Colmar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose A lot to recommend it, but I think it would look better in stronger light. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Were it not for the cars, this could be a painting. Cmao20 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree the cars are a big negative and likely need to get up early to avoid them but that's what the postcard photographers do. Wrt looking like a painting, yes this doesn't look like a photo. It has been overprocessed, with a very heavy hand on the Lightroom sliders. Compare File:Colmar (31617330537).jpg. -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Solitär in der Hamburger HafenCity.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 06:04:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info High-rise appartment building on the corner of Osakaallee and Tokiostraße, HafenCity quarter Hamburg, as seen from Überseeboulevard. The building is an example of the solitary architecture that this part of Hamburg has been criticised for. c/u/n by Frank Schulenburg
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Reminds me of this FP of mine. Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bold, striking image that works well because of the contrast of red against blue. Cmao20 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20 -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A building with slight vertical distortion is not supposed to work - but somehow it does. -- King of ♠ 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-07-20-Dingle Lighthouse-0673.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 23:30:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @W.carter: Yes, that is indeed a typo. Why I thought that was German for lighthouse, I have no clue. Thank you for the notice--Boothsift 00:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The German term would be "Leuchtturm" (Lighttower) :-) I fixed the typo to lighthouse --Superbass (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Superbass. In the future, please wait until the nom is finished before renaming a file since it messes with the codes for the nom. I'll keep an eye on this and fix the links if this nom is successful. --Cart (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I had no idea this could be a problem. Thanks for the hint and for a correction if necessary. --Superbass (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but do fix the typo. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Extremely picturesque and nicely done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment A very nice view that deserves FP IMHO, but, Superbass, can you please fix the perspective (see on the right the buildings leaning out)? Poco2 10:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a very fine perspective problem at the tiny houses in the background. I have tickled a correction out of Lightroom using guides in zoomed view: Click. Unfortunately this costs pixels at the edges of the photo. I personally prefer the image composition in the candidate photo and find the minimal slant in some of the tiny houses acceptable, what do you think? --Superbass (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Proper perspective correction in photos taken from top to down is extremely difficult to get right and often distorts the photo too much, so usually it is not done. --Cart (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with Cart. When "looking down" the verticals slope outwards rather than inwards. When we "fix the perspective" are are pretending the camera was pointing straight ahead and with a very wide angle lens -- sometimes the distortions of that virtual-lens are then too negative in their own ways. I can only see the sloping when pixel peeping. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Common tern at Brooklyn Bridge Park (21040).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 20:07:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.